Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Do length and gauge of dental needle affect success in performing an inferior alveolar nerve block during extraction of adult mandibular molars? A prospective, randomized observer-blind, clinical trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Association between length and gauge of dental needle and success rate and pain perception during an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) has not been investigated using a randomized clinical trial (RCT). This RCT aimed to compare the success rate of IANB and perceived pain using 27- or 30-gauge needles for the extraction of adult mandibular molars.

Material and method

A prospective RCT was conducted on two hundred and twelve adult patients requiring extraction of mandibular molars using standard methods as described by Malamed with 1.8 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline. One hundred six patients received IANB using 27-gauge needles (32 mm × 0.2 mm) and one hundred six patients received IANB using 30-gauge needles (25 mm × 0.15 mm). Predictor variables were 27-gauge and short and 30-gauge. Outcome variables were the success rate of IANB and pain perception during injection using a visual analogue scale.

Results

There was a highly significantly increase in the success of IANB using 27-gauge needle (95.28%) versus 30-gauge needle (41.51%) (P = 0.001). There was a significant increase in pain perception for patients who received IANB by shorter and thinner needle (30-gauge) when compared to the long and thicker needle (27-gauge).

Conclusion

This RCT demonstrated that 27-gauge needle seems to be associated with a higher success rate of IANB and lower pain perception during injection when compared to 30-gauge needle in the extraction of adult mandibular molars when compared to 30-gauge needles.

Clinical relevance

For adult patients, when thickness of soft tissue to be penetrated is essential to achieve bony contact, long or large gauge dental needle is preferred to get a higher success rate of IANB with less pain perception during injection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sirin Y, Humphris G, Sencan S, Firat D (2012) What is the most fearful intervention in ambulatory oral surgery? Analysis of an outpatient clinic. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:1284–1290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Oosterink FM, de Jongh A, Aartman IH (2008) What are people afraid of during dental treatment? Anxiety-provoking capacity of 67 stimuli characteristic of the dental setting. Eur J Oral Sci 116:44–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Astramskaite I, Poskevicius L, Juodzbalys G (2016) Factors determining tooth extraction anxiety and fear in adult dental patients: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45:1630–1643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. van Wijk A, Lindeboom JA, de Jongh A, Tuk JG, Hoogstraten J (2012) Pain related to mandibular block injections and its relationship with anxiety and previous experiences with dental anesthetics. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 114:S114–S119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sokolowski CJ, Giovannitti JA Jr, Boynes SG (2010) Needle phobia: etiology, adverse consequences, and patient management. Dent Clin N Am 54:731–744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Majstorovic M, Veerkamp JS (2004) Relationship between needle phobia and dental anxiety. J Dent Child (Chic) 71:201

    Google Scholar 

  7. Samieirad S, Sharifian-Attar A, Eshghpour M, Mianbandi V, Shadkam E, Hosseini-Abrishami M, Hashemipour MS (2018) Comparison of Ondansetron versus clonidine efficacy for prevention of postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting after orthognathic surgeries: a triple blind randomized controlled trial. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 23:e767

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Malamed SF (2013) Techniques of mandibular anesthesia. In: Malamed SF. Handbook of local anesthesia. St Louis: Mosby, ed. 227

  9. Kanaa MD, Whitworth JM, Corbett IP, Meechan JG (2009) Articaine buccal infiltration enhances the effectiveness of lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block. Int Endod J 42:238–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaufman E, Weinstein P, Milgrom P (1984) Difficulties in achieving local anesthesia. J Am Dent Assoc 108:205–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Malamed SF (2011) Is the mandibular nerve block passé? J Am Dent Assoc 142:3S–7S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Malamed SF (2013) The armamentarium. In : Handbook of local anesthesia St Louis: Mosby, (ed)

  13. Jeske AH, Boshart BF (1985) Deflection of conventional versus nondeflecting dental needles in vitro. Anesth Prog 32:62

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Hochman MN, Friedman MJ (2000) In vitro study of needle deflection: a linear insertion technique versus a bidirectional rotation insertion technique. Quintessence Int 31:33

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Delgado-Molina E, Tamarit-Borras M, Berini-Aytes L, Gay-Escoda C (2009) Comparative study of two needle models in terms of deflection during inferior alveolar nerve block. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 14:e440

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Davidson MJ (1989) Bevel-oriented mandibular injections: needle deflection can be beneficial. Gen Dent 37:410

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Almendros Marques NA, Delgado Molina E, Tamarit Borras M, Berini Aytes L, Gay Escoda C (2007) Comparison of two needle models in terms of bevel deformation during truncal block of the inferior alveolar nerve. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 12:E317

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Aldous JA (1968) Needle deflection: a factor in the administration of local anesthetics. J Am Dent Assoc 77:602–604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Steinkruger G, Nusstein J, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J (2006) The significance of needle bevel orientation in achieving a successful inferior alveolar nerve block. J Am Dent Assoc 137:1685–1691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kennedy S, Reader A, Nusstein J, Beck M, Weaver J (2003) The significance of needle deflection in success of the inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis. J Endod 29:630–633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Brownbill JW, Walker PO, Bourcy BD, Keenan KM (1987) Comparison of inferior dental nerve block injections in child patients using 30-gauge and 25-gauge short needles. Anesth Prog 34:215

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Ghasemi DRS, Aghasizadeh E (2014) Comparison of inferior dental nerve block injections in child patients using 30-gauge and 27-gauge short needles. J Dent Mater Tech 3:71

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fuller NP, Menke RA, Meyers WJ (1979) Perception of pain to three different intraoral penetrations of needles. J Am Dent Assoc 99:822–824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. McPherson JS, Dixon SA, Townsend R, Vandewalle KS (2015) Effect of needle design on pain from dental local anesthetic injections. Anesth Prog 62:2–7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Ghaderi F, Ahmadbeigi M (2018) Pain perception due to dental injection by Smartject: split mouth design study. J Dent (Shiraz) 19:57

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mollen AJ, Ficara AJ, Provant DR (1981) Needles--25 gauge versus 27 gauge--can patients really tell? Gen Dent 29:417

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lehtinen R (1983) Penetration of 27- and 30-gauge dental needles. Int J Oral Surg 12:444–445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Flanagan T, Wahl MJ, Schmitt MM, Wahl JA (2007) Size doesn’t matter: needle gauge and injection pain. Gen Dent 55:216

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ram D, Hermida BL, Amir E (2007) Reaction of children to dental injection with 27- or 30-gauge needles. Int J Paediatr Dent 17:383–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Asokan A, Rao A, Mohan G, Reddy N, Kumar K (2014) A pain perception comparison of intraoral dental anesthesia with 26 and 30 gauge needles in 6-12-year-old children. J Pediatr Dent 2:56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group C (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340:c332

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Malamed SF (2013) Basic injection technique. In: Handbook of local anesthesia. St. Louis: Mosby, ed. 132

  33. Macaskill P, Walter SD, Irwig L (2001) A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. Stat Med 20:641–654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. StataCorp (2013) Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station: StataCorpLP

  35. Cooley RL, Robison SF (1979) Comparative evaluation of the 30-gauge dental needle. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 48:400–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Robison SF, Mayhew RB, Cowan RD, Hawley RJ (1984) Comparative study of deflection characteristics and fragility of 25-, 27-, and 30-gauge short dental needles. J Am Dent Assoc 109:920–924

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Malamed SF, Reed K, Poorsattar S (2010) Needle breakage: incidence and prevention. Dent Clin N Am 54:745–756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lu Q, Tsao JC, Myers CD, Kim SC, Zeltzer LK (2007) Coping predictors of children’s laboratory-induced pain tolerance, intensity, and unpleasantness. J Pain 8:708–717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Venham LL, Goldstein M, Gaulin-Kremer E, Peteros K, Cohan J, Fairbanks J (1981) Effectiveness of a distraction technique in managing young dental patients. Pediatr Dent 3:7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Jeske AH, Blanton PL (2002) Misconceptions involving dental local anesthesia. Part 2: Pharmacology. Tex Dent J 119:310

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Farsakian LR, Weine FS (1991) The significance of needle gauge in dental injections. Compendium 12:262

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kincheloe JE, Mealiea WL Jr, Mattison GD, Seib K (1991) Psychophysical measurement on pain perception after administration of a topical anesthetic. Quintessence Int 22:311

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Rehman N, Qazi SR (2019) Efficacy of topical benzocaine in maxilla: a randomized controlled trial. Anesth Prog 66:24–29

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. de Freiras GC, Pozzobon RT, Blaya DS, Moreira CH (2015) Efficacy of benzocaine 20% topical anesthetic compared to placebo prior to administration of local anesthesia in the Oral cavity: a randomized controlled trial. Anesth Prog 62:46–50

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Meechan JG, Howlett PC, Smith BD (2005) Factors influencing the discomfort of intraoral needle penetration. Anesth Prog 52:91–94

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. de Souza Melo MR, Sabey MJ, Lima CJ, de Almeida Souza LM, Groppo FC (2015) The effect of 2 injection speeds on local anesthetic discomfort during inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Anesth Prog 62:106–109

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Kuscu OO, Akyuz S (2008) Is it the injection device or the anxiety experienced that causes pain during dental local anaesthesia? Int J Paediatr Dent 18:139–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Serour F, Mandelberg A, Mori J (1998) Slow injection of local anaesthetic will decrease pain during dorsal penile nerve block. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 42:926–928

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Whitworth JM, Kanaa MD, Corbett IP, Meechan JG (2007) Influence of injection speed on the effectiveness of incisive/mental nerve block: a randomized, controlled, double-blind study in adult volunteers. J Endod 33:1149–1154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kanaa MD, Meechan JG, Corbett IP, Whitworth JM (2006) Speed of injection influences efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve blocks: a double-blind randomized controlled trial in volunteers. J Endod 32:919–923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Krause RS, Moscati R, Filice M, Lerner EB, Hughes D (1997) The effect of injection speed on the pain of lidocaine infiltration. Acad Emerg Med 4:1032–1034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Kronman JH, el-Bermani AW, Wongwatana S, Kumar A (1994) Preferred needle lengths for inferior alveolar anesthesia. Gen Dent 42:74

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Delgado-Molina E, Tamarit-Borras M, Berini-Aytes L, Gay-Escoda C (2003) Evaluation and comparison of 2 needle models in terms of blood aspiration during truncal block of the inferior alveolar nerve. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 61:1011–1015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Thamar University, Thamar, Yemen

    Essam Ahmed Al-Moraissi

  2. Department of Oral Surgery and Dental Implantology, College of Dentistry, University of Science and Technology, Sanaa, Yemen

    Abeer Mohammed Al-Selwi & Elham Aziz Al-Zendani

Authors
  1. Essam Ahmed Al-Moraissi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abeer Mohammed Al-Selwi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elham Aziz Al-Zendani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Essam Ahmed Al-Moraissi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Moraissi, E.A., Al-Selwi, A.M. & Al-Zendani, E.A. Do length and gauge of dental needle affect success in performing an inferior alveolar nerve block during extraction of adult mandibular molars? A prospective, randomized observer-blind, clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 25, 4887–4893 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03796-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03796-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation